DiscussMormonism.com

DaftJ:

I see. So, much like "translate" and "Egyptian" being highly fluid words, we shouldn't assume that when you say, "I have indeed read everything you have written concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers," it means that you have read everything he has written concerning the KEP.

???

As I thought was made perfectly clear, I have indeed read everything Ashment has written concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. It's not much. But I have read it.

And, I've even listened (at least twice) to his 1980 Sunstone presentation. Bad audio; squeaky rodent voice, and all.

The fact is, Ed Ashment hasn't ever said much of anything when it comes to the KEP, as I'm sure he'll acknowledge. His CV is focused on the papyri and other Egyptology-related things. That's why his list of publications is largely meaningless in the context of this discussion.

William Schryver wrote:DaftJ:

I see. So, much like "translate" and "Egyptian" being highly fluid words, we shouldn't assume that when you say, "I have indeed read everything you have written concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers," it means that you have read everything he has written concerning the KEP.

???

As I thought was made perfectly clear, I have indeed read everything Ashment has written concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. It's not much. But I have read it.

And, I've even listened (at least twice) to his 1980 Sunstone presentation. Bad audio; squeaky rodent voice, and all.

The fact is, Ed Ashment hasn't ever said much of anything when it comes to the KEP, as I'm sure he'll acknowledge. His CV is focused on the papyri and other Egyptology-related things. That's why his list of publications is largely meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Oh, so the papyri and other Egyptology-related things are meaningless in the context of the KEP. In other words, the only question that ultimately matters---whether the Book of Abraham is an accurate translation of ancient writings from Egypt---is meaningless to the discussion about the Kirtland Egyptian papers. I agree.

Let me just add a quick reminder about what "translate" means in Mormon doctrine, not apologist Orwellian doublespeak.

In the Book of Mormon, we get the following when the records of the Jaredites are found, but written in a language that the Nephites cannot understand:

11 And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust; and there is no one in the land that is able to interpret the language or the engravings that are on the plates. Therefore I said unto thee: Canst thou translate?
12 And I say unto thee again: Knowest thou of any one that can translate? For I am desirous that these records should be translated into our language; for, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of a remnant of the people who have been destroyed, from whence these records came; or, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of this very people who have been destroyed; and I am desirous to know the cause of their destruction.
13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God.

Mosiah 8

Now, this part is alluding to the Urim and Thummim, but the principle is the same. The issue is not about process, but about product. If one is using the power of God to translate, then the product should be as if a person who could speak both languages translated. "Translate" does in fact mean taking something written in one language and changing it into another language.

When you translate, this phrase:

I miei padri, essendosi volti dalla rettitudine e dai santi comandamenti che il Signore loro Dio aveva dato loro, all'adorazione degli dei dei pagani, rifiutarono in modo assoluto di dare ascolto la mia voce

Should read in substance more or less like this:

My fathers, having turned themselves from righteousness and from the holy commandments that the Lord their God had given them, to the worship of the gods of the pagans, completely (or absolutely) refused to listen to my voice

It should not read like this:

And I went to the county fair and ate a corn dog, and then I rode the Tilt-a-Whirl with the stuffed animal I won at the ring toss game

If I claim that I turned phrase number 1 into phrase number 3 through the power of God, then you may reasonably infer that I did not have the power of God because it does not accurately reflect what phrase number 1 says.

A similar principle in Mormon doctrine is the gift of tongues:

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith

“Joseph Smith then gave an explanation of the gift of tongues, that it was particularly instituted for the preaching of the Gospel to other nations and languages, but it was not given for the government of the Church......

Tongues were given for the purpose of preaching among those whose language is not understood; as on the day of Pentecost, etc., and it is not necessary for tongues to be taught to the Church particularly, for any man that has the Holy Ghost, can speak of the things of God in his own tongue as well as to speak in another; for faith comes not by signs, but by hearing the word of God.”

Whether it is by the power of God or by "academic translation," the end product should be the same, per Mormon teachings about translating ancient records and the gift of tongues. The Book of Abraham is either a legitimate translation of ancient documents from Egypt, or it is not.

Willard Scribbler wrote:And, I've even listened (at least twice) to his 1980 Sunstone presentation. Bad audio; squeaky rodent voice, and all.

Why the repeated, impertinent slams on Ashment? Has he personally offended you or something?

Willard Scribbler wrote:At any rate, you have no idea of the wide-ranging appeal and acceptance of my findings.

Yes, several Mormon scholars from different disciplines who are united in their purpose of defending Mormonism have evidently expressed some approval for your findings. Of course, a little of that we might chalk up to the tendency the LDS apologetic community has to stand behind a particular, anointed theory, no matter how indefensible, until the next argument comes along. But still, you have managed to raise the interest of a few faithful Mormon scholar-apologists. Don't know how that demonstrates "wide-ranging appeal and acceptance," but then you do find needless exaggerations and self-promotion irresistible. Practically every Will post is a new pronouncement of unproven provens, declarations of victory, and proclamations of a new revolution in Mormon scholarship. It has long since become tedious.

The fact is, Ed Ashment hasn't ever said much of anything when it comes to the KEP, as I'm sure he'll acknowledge. His CV is focused on the papyri and other Egyptology-related things. That's why his list of publications is largely meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Proving again that you haven't read what he's written. Riddle me this Schryver, who on the planet has published more on the KEP? The reason you haven't answered is because you know the answer is going to make you look like an idiot again. The only person who has published more is Michael Maquardt and the Tanners, who were left with microfilm scraps of what Ashment has had in his possession for decades. And you want us to think this out of work filmmaker, who as of four years ago didn't even know what the KEP were, is going to turn all of that on its head just because you have "intuitive" arguments? God I can't wait until you actually publish something. You're going to be ripped to pieces. And then after we rip you to pieces you're going to start talking about further evidences in an "upcoming" work that you forgot to mention in this one; evidences that make all our refutations magically disappear. We know the drill.

At any rate, you have no idea of the wide-ranging appeal and acceptance of my findings.

Yes, from the usual suspects at the echo chamber, we all know this already and no one is impressed. But upon further probing we tend find out that few, if an of them, actuallly understood what the hell it was you were pretending to prove, which makes it all the more humorous. They just accept it because its the loyal thing to do at this point.

William Schryver wrote:Oh, beastsheba, you really need to give up your roof-top fantasies. You're stuck where you are, and this is as good as it's ever going to get for you.

Furthermore, I've never expressed a desire to "see [your] naked". Nor do I have such a desire. Nor do I think there is enough tequila in Mexico to fill me with that desire. And it has nothing to do with your lack of physical beauty. I clearly recall acknowledging that you are a very attractive woman. On the outside. Just as is my beloved wife (who will turn 53 in a few weeks, making her probably about your age). In fact, I imagine the biggest difference between her and you is that her soul hasn't been permanently cankered by the rot of unrelinquished resentments.

LOL. I can't even imagine how you came up with the idea that I have some "roof top fantasies." I'll share your vulgar insult again, because the idea of someone with your foul mouth and malicious temperament having his "calling and election made sure", having very "high-level friends", and becoming some sort of crowned prince of Book of Abraham apologia should fill every critic of the LDS church with absolute delight. It's like an early Christmas. So, once again, here's Wee Willie, doing what Wee Willie does bes - being vulgar and rude:

Settle down, beastsheba. I assure you I have no desire whatsoever to watch you bathe.

In the immortal words of Dodge Connelly:
Quote:
”You’re only as young as the women you feel.”


And I have no desire to feel sixty-five.

viewtopic.php?p=356746#p356746

Now Wee Willie, realizing that he's slammed his own wife, who is my exact age, just as surely as he's slammed me, tries to put a fine spin on it, but the record stands. And that is what is so great about all this: Will has a long record on the internet, filled with gems such as this. I absolutely love the idea of him being A Very Important Apologist.

You've long since made it quite apparent that you wouldn't know an "easily apparent flaw" if it bit you on your pretty little ...

At any rate, you have no idea of the wide-ranging appeal and acceptance of my findings. No idea. Just be certain of one thing: they won't disappear anytime soon. They possess explanatory power that stands on its own, notwithstanding the mindless opposition to them that goes on here in this insignificant little corner of cyberspace.

Once again: why is that even you cannot define what that "something far more definitive" is as a reason to reject Nibley's theory? Wade cannot identify it, and he's been a loyal lapdog. Nomad certainly won't be able to, because he's only able to say what you are able to say. So who can identify this "something far more definitive"?

And if the answer is "no one", well, then, that's just one more thing to delight critics in all this.

beastlie:

LOL. I can't even imagine how you came up with the idea that I have some "roof top fantasies."

And you were actually an active LDS and a returned missionary? I guess Alma was right when he wrote:

… they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

In any case, beastsheba, since you’ve apparently forgotten your Bible stories, it was David, from his roof-top, observing Bathsheba "washing herself," that aroused within him the wicked desires that led to his eventual fall from grace:

… And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.

… realizing that he's slammed his own wife, who is my exact age …

Your age physically, but whose heart and soul are so much more nubile and so much less cankered by the unrelinquished resentments that have afflicted you for so long.

… why is that even you cannot define what that "something far more definitive" is as a reason to reject Nibley's theory?

I have defined it. Indeed, I made it perfectly clear in my FAIR conference address. Multiple times. With pronounced emphasis on each occasion.

That you and your cohorts can’t seem to comprehend these things is of no concern to me. Remember, you’re not my target audience. I am convinced that there is nothing that could open your eyes at this point. You have all, more or less without exception, gone past the point of no return. You would not believe even were one to rise from the dead before your very eyes. Your hardened apostate hearts are past feeling. All that is left for you is to live out your days until the time comes when:

… every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye.

I see William Coward Schryver is back to picking fights with the women. Maybe when his male chromosome kicks in (assuming he has one) he'll answer the question: "Who has published more on the KEP than Ed Ashment?"

And now after those messages of diversion, back to the topic of this thread:

KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence